mportance of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Heller (2020).

In light of K.L.B. v. British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403, 2003 SCC 51, does the principle of vicarious liability apply to the Government?

What is the Criminal Court of the City of New York?

Film District, a newly-formed film studio and distributor worked out a deal with Netflix, Inc. to stream new movies over the Internet just a few months after they are released on DVDs. Under the terms of the agreement, new movies from Film District will be licensed exclusively to Netflix instead of appearing on premium cable channels. Industry observers believe this deal reflects the new realities of changing channels for movies from theaters, home videos, and cable pay TV to online streaming. Netflix also has a similar deal with Relativity Media, the movie company that financed the highly-acclaimed boxing movie, The Fighter. Given the rapid and dramatic changes occurring in film distribution channels, how might partnerships or alliances such as that between Netflix and Film District be helpful to either firm in managing their distribution channels?

Subject: Business Law    Discuss what is intoxication in law ?  How can an person avoid a contract entered into under intoxication?   Using the following case and THREE of your own, You are required to research relevant case laws on this matter and discuss in detail.  Also discuss in detail the outcome of the cases.  Nash V. Inman (1908) Sherrington v. Sherrington (2005) Howe v. Smith (2017)   Additional requirements Introduction- The introduction and objectives are clearly stated. Background and context are clearly articulated and linked to objectives effectively. Analysis- Analysis is highly relevant to the assignment requirements and presented clearly and logically. Very strong link made between theory and practice. Case laws- The Case law presented and facts is highly relevant to the assignment Conclusion- Conclusion is clearly stated and connections to the arguments and positions are clear and relevant. The underlying logic is explicit.

The insured is covered under O.A.P. 1 Owner’s Policy including Direct Compensation-Property Damage and is involved in an accident in Ontario with an automobile, for which he/she is not at fault. His/her car is severely damaged and personal belongings in the car are destroyed. Which one (1) of the following statements is correct? O A) Damage to the insured's car and reimbursement for a rental vehicle are covered by the third party’s policy. O B) Damage to the insured’s car, replacement of destroyed personal belongings and reimbursement for a rental vehicle are covered by the insured’s policy, less the policy deductible. O C) Damage to the insured’s car, replacement of destroyed personal belongings and reimbursement for a rental vehicle are covered by the third party's policy. O D) Only damage to the insured’s car and reimbursement for a rental vehicle are covered by the insured's policy.

8.

Pollution remediation obligations should be recognized if which of the following obligating events has occurred?   Multiple Choice A violation of a pollution prevention permit has occurred. All of the given items are obligating events that would require recognition of a pollution remediation obligation. The government is compelled to take remediation action due to imminent endangerment to the public health. The government is named or will be named as the responsible or potentially responsible party to a remediation.

Case Brief  for Leonard v PepsiCo

Why did the plaintiffs think they should not be bound by the arbitration clause?